THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Cartilage Head on 09 Apr 2008, 20:41

Title: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Cartilage Head on 09 Apr 2008, 20:41
 Nobody reads the arts and crafts thread, and the point of this thread is more about the discussion of art and artists than actually making the art, so..

 Who is your favorite/ current favorite working artist of today?

 Recently I found out about a supercool artist named Krzysztof Wodiczko. He stages a kind of performance art at monuments all over the world, from Japan to Mexcico. It usually consists of projecting an image of a person's face, hands, or entire body onto the monument while they discuss painful experiences in relation to the monument, making it a very original type of protest piece.


Tijuana Projection
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/hey_there_fatty/Tijuana-1.jpg)

 Projected off of the Tijuana Cultural Center. Victims of gang violence and rape courageously spoke up about their pain and experinces, their faces revealed and contorted.

Hiroshima Projection
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/hey_there_fatty/Hiroshima.jpg)

 Projected on the bank of a river (some body of water.. not sure..) just outside the Hiroshima Peace Memorial or Atomic Bomb Dome, the closest surviving structure to the hypocenter of the atomic bomb explosion. Hands of survivors and loved-ones of the dead are shown above the water as they speak about their experiences.

 The first part of this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4M8QNdCK_DQ) shows the projection in action.

Homeless Vehicle Project
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/hey_there_fatty/HomelessVehicleProject.jpg)

Wodiczko talked with homeless people in New York and came up with an awesome idea, a cart that can hold belongings and bottles, and also provides a small shelter.
 




Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Tom on 10 Apr 2008, 01:33
Yeah, that last thing is a cool idea but totally impractical. It would cost money to manufacture and then buy the 'vehicle'.

Money
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Lines on 10 Apr 2008, 06:27
I don't really know if you mean modern or contemporary, but Kiki Smith is a contemporary post-modern artist I've been enjoying a lot recently.

(http://photos-308.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v188/7/2/21400308/n21400308_34683715_6944.jpg)

(http://photos-308.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v188/7/2/21400308/n21400308_34683936_6244.jpg)

These are two wall installations I saw of hers in New York, but I like the prints I've seen of hers as well.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: valley_parade on 10 Apr 2008, 08:06
I really dig Spencer Finch's current exhibition at Mass MoCA...so I guess him.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: jhocking on 10 Apr 2008, 08:18
I don't really know if you mean modern or contemporary

Yeah, he clearly means contemporary art. Not many people realize the distinction, but "modern" really applies to art from the turn of the century to like the 60s, whereas the term for artists actually creating work today is "contemporary."

I don't know that I really have a favorite, since my tastes really vary from piece to piece. I really like much of the work by, say, Cory Arcangel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Arcangel), but I don't know that I'd describe him as my favorite artist.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Unosuke on 10 Apr 2008, 08:29
I love how the quality of a lot of modern art is how well you can bullshit the explanation behind it. I could nail a 2x4 to a shoe and come up with some crap about existentialism and the working class, and have it be considered high art.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Lines on 10 Apr 2008, 10:18
Yeah, he clearly means contemporary art.

That's what I thought. Especially because I didn't outright hate the images he posted as soon as I saw them. ;)
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: a pack of wolves on 10 Apr 2008, 10:53
Yeah, that last thing is a cool idea but totally impractical. It would cost money to manufacture and then buy the 'vehicle'.

Money

You're missing the point. With those vehicles for homeless living Wodiczko raised issues about how a life has been created within cities which requires a great deal of equipment and planning to live optimally, something the people who fall into it don't have. It also raises ideas about the practicality of art, and removes it from the situation of merely creating things which can be (and in my opinion often are) reduced to mere decoration to a position of creating objects designed for use, not admiration behind a glass case. It also brings up questions about the way homelessness is approached, as something to be fixed and the people in that situation should be brought into mainstream society. Is this correct? Wodiczko's work doesn't answer that question but it is something that should be considered, perhaps what's needed is help for people to live any life the best they can and not attempt to make them fit into a mould of what a good life should be.

Quote
I love how the quality of a lot of modern art is how well you can bullshit the explanation behind it. I could nail a 2x4 to a shoe and come up with some crap about existentialism and the working class, and have it be considered high art.

Go on then, do it. The reality is that you can't, there's no way you could come up with a good piece of conceptual art. You may not understand, and that's fine, but that claim is just as ridiculous as people that say hip-hop requires no talent since MCs just talk or rock and roll is just simplistic noise that anyone can do. Funnily enough none of these people are ever multi-platinum artists, which always suggests to me that they're utterly wrong.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: jhocking on 10 Apr 2008, 11:12
Oh I wouldn't say that he's utterly wrong, but he's certainly overly simplistic and being dismissive based on ignorance. On the one hand, there certainly is a culture of celebrity artists where the actual merits of the work are far overridden by the fame of the artist. It's an emperor's-new-clothes kinda situation; once somebody really important has paid an insane amount for a given person's work, that artist is now anointed as a superstar and nobody questions the situation. I'm not saying that someone like, say, Damien Hirst is a bad artist (I rather like his work,) but I would dispute whether his work is really worth $100 million a pop.

That all said, it's quite unfair and uninformed to dismiss the entire art-world based on narrow views of it's extremes. It would be like dismissing the entire tech industry on the basis of Steve Ballmer. In this specific case, the sort of work he refers to was mostly done by a handful of artists in the Dada and Fluxus movements (these were the people who did things like put a urinal in a museum.) First off, they weren't so much making art as they were attempting to set off a revolution in the perception of art by doing ridiculous things. Second, as influential as they were, don't you think it is a tad biased to judge an entire sector of modern culture based on a couple small fringe groups, the only surviving member of which is Yoko Ono?

Ultimately, much of mainstream dismissal of art comes from envy. Basically, people wish they were rich and famous, and snipe at people they are envious of. This is just human nature, and it's like in any other area of life. Personally, I'm secure enough that I prefer to focus on improving myself, rather than being envious and attempting to make myself feel better by lowering those I am envious of.


(durr I mixed up the artist's name until I saw Jimmy's post.)
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: ruyi on 10 Apr 2008, 12:10
(http://photos-308.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v188/7/2/21400308/n21400308_34683936_6244.jpg)

I saw this at SF MoMA! I thought it was so clever, it gave you like a God's-eye view of Eve when you looked at her body directly from the front.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Lines on 10 Apr 2008, 15:12
I love how the quality of a lot of modern art is how well you can bullshit the explanation behind it.

We don't buy bullshit, FYI. If you can't defend your art and defend it WELL, no one is going to waste their time with it. Especially so with conceptual art. Also saying that artists bullshit explanations is mildly insulting, because really, until you defend your own artwork, you have no idea how freaking hard it is.

Also, guys, as Joe said earlier, there is a difference between Modern, a particular movement, and contemporary, the current period of time. You can be a contemporary artist, but this does not mean you are a modernist.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: heidifer on 10 Apr 2008, 16:35
if you don't get a lot of contemporary art it's because you haven't learned to look at art and you are probably used to having everything handed to you.

most contemporary artists are working with obscurity and try to get the viewer to use his or her own brain to make interpretations. in fact, for many contemporary artists the true art is the experience the viewer has with the work.

i'm just sayin'.

also, i kind of like sofia hulten:

http://www.sofiahulten.de/daten/worksindex.html (http://www.sofiahulten.de/daten/worksindex.html)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Trollstormur on 10 Apr 2008, 20:52
hey guys let's fight about art. that would be great.
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: Emaline on 10 Apr 2008, 21:04
if you don't get a lot of contemporary art it's because you haven't learned to look at art and you are probably used to having everything handed to you.



Wow.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Verergoca on 10 Apr 2008, 21:18
Uhm, what?
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 10 Apr 2008, 22:21
I don't know if he is still active, in fact it's possible that he is in fact dead, but I really like the work of James Gleeson.

BEHOLD!!

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/jimmy5times/Ikon.jpg)

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/jimmy5times/gleeson1.jpg)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Darkbluerabbit on 10 Apr 2008, 22:40
You guys know who's pretty badass?
Horst Janssen.  He died in 1995, but in the grand scheme of art history, I'd consider him a recent artist. 

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p316/darkbluerabbit/Jan.jpg)

Demented alcoholic Germans do pretty cool art.  Etching is also probably the most awesome art form (slight bias). 
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 10 Apr 2008, 22:43
I also really like Damien Hirst's work

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/entertainment/0603/gallery.modern.masters/gallery.hirstfather.gi.afp.jpg)

This one is a little big so I'll just link (http://gretchenworsleynyc.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/hirst_impossibility.jpg) it.

(http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/galleries/art/hirstwhitecube/031_05_hirst_350x300.jpg)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Emaline on 10 Apr 2008, 23:25
Etching is also probably the most awesome art form (slight bias). 



Oh for serious. Do you etch? Or printmake, anyways?
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: a pack of wolves on 11 Apr 2008, 02:53
Oh I wouldn't say that he's utterly wrong, but he's certainly overly simplistic and being dismissive based on ignorance. On the one hand, there certainly is a culture of celebrity artists where the actual merits of the work are far overridden by the fame of the artist. It's an emperor's-new-clothes kinda situation; once somebody really important has paid an insane amount for a given person's work, that artist is now anointed as a superstar and nobody questions the situation. I'm not saying that someone like, say, Damien Hirst is a bad artist (I rather like his work,) but I would dispute whether his work is really worth $100 million a pop.

That all said, it's quite unfair and uninformed to dismiss the entire art-world based on narrow views of it's extremes. It would be like dismissing the entire tech industry on the basis of Steve Ballmer. In this specific case, the sort of work he refers to was mostly done by a handful of artists in the Dada and Fluxus movements (these were the people who did things like put a urinal in a museum.) First off, they weren't so much making art as they were attempting to set off a revolution in the perception of art by doing ridiculous things. Second, as influential as they were, don't you think it is a tad biased to judge an entire sector of modern culture based on a couple small fringe groups, the only surviving member of which is Yoko Ono?

Ultimately, much of mainstream dismissal of art comes from envy. Basically, people wish they were rich and famous, and snipe at people they are envious of. This is just human nature, and it's like in any other area of life. Personally, I'm secure enough that I prefer to focus on improving myself, rather than being envious and attempting to make myself feel better by lowering those I am envious of.

I agree about the culture of celebrity artists, I don't much care for it myself. Particularly since I haven't seen Hirst do anything I found interesting in years, although I did really like pieces like the shark and the pharmacy. Good work on death. The thing I was objecting to was the idea that conceptual art doesn't require any effort when it's actually very tough work as Linds pointed out. Hirst spent years working on ideas about death before he got to the stage where he was producing the work that made him famous, he used to go and draw cadavers frequently when he was in art college. Same thing with Dada and Fluxus, there was a massive amount of work behind a piece like Fountain even if Duchamp didn't sculpt it himself. I suppose I'm just a bit touchy on the subject since art is the family business for me, even if I didn't go into it myself most of the hardest working people I know are artists.

Even though he died in 2001 I guess Juan Muñoz is recent enough. The retrospective running at Tate Modern at the moment is incredible, it's hard to get a handle on his sculpture just through photographs though since so much is how they're positioned in the gallery and how they force you to position yourself in an interaction with them.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2008/01/01/year400.jpg)

And although I'm obviously biased I like my sister's work a lot, this a group piece called Siege and Counter Siege her old collective Something Haptic did in Hoorn, Netherlands:

(http://www.ruthbarker.com/images/hoorn_-_seige001.jpg)

(http://www.ruthbarker.com/images/hoorn_-_group001.jpg)

www.ruthbarker.com
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Thaes on 11 Apr 2008, 06:10
I have to admit, those works of art by James Gleeson are the best artistic things I´ve seen in a while.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 11 Apr 2008, 06:31
Etching is also probably the most awesome art form (slight bias). 
Oh for serious. Do you etch? Or printmake, anyways?

Printing is the best! I need to find my notes from when I visited the print dept. at the art museum, because there was this MASSIVE multi-plate etching that was phenomenal. (Well, it was massive for an etching, as large etchings are kind of rare.)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Darkbluerabbit on 11 Apr 2008, 10:32
Printmaking is my emphasis at college.

The metal you make plates with is really expensive, so it is easy to see why not many printmakers work large.  I've always preferred working small, so I enjoy it as a medium.  Also it involves asphalt, hot copper, and acid that can eat through metal, and art is better when it holds potential for injury. 

It is cool that there are other printmakers here, because I can show this and have people who understand how completely insane this guy's attention to detail is.

Sirens-Art Werger
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p316/darkbluerabbit/Werger1.jpg)

That is a multiplate etching, which is mind-blowing.  I like his black and white stuff a lot better, but the control he has over color is just fucking incredible.   
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 11 Apr 2008, 13:23
Well, size limitations also have to do with the size of the press you're working on, as presses only get so big and you have to have a press for etching. So yeah, etchings and lithographs on a large scale are rare due to both cost of supplies as well as the press you're working with. (Printing is my emphasis as well.)

And yes, that is insane for a color etching. I thought it was a watercolor or some form of painting at first.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: dancarter on 11 Apr 2008, 19:32
I almost passed by this without reading it, thinking "oh, that's a nice watercolour...".  That is insane.  I spent two semesters doing printmaking (I paint now) and to think I complained about having to do two colour or four colour with four different techniques in one piece.  Stuff like this baffles me because I don't have the patience for it.

Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: imonfire on 12 Apr 2008, 00:46
Gottfried Helnwein

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/scatchblack/got.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/scatchblack/epi.jpg)

http://www.helnwein.com/
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Spluff on 12 Apr 2008, 00:52
Second to the left of the bottom picture - arseface?
Title: Re: Modern artists!
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Apr 2008, 10:22
there was a massive amount of work behind a piece like Fountain even if Duchamp didn't sculpt it himself.

The story behind Fountain is rather interesting. Duchamp was, at the time, a board member of a group called the Society For Independent Artists, who put on an exhibition which they claimed would display any submission. Duchamp made Fountain specifically to test their commitment: that is why it is signed 'R. Mutt', he was hiding his involvement. When the Society decided that Fountain wasn't art and refused to show it, he resigned from the board because they did not have sufficient commitment to their own lofty claims. I'm reasonably sure that the original Fountain wasn't even ever exhibited at all: it doesn't exist now, as it was thrown away by accident. There are six authorised reproductions, however, in various art museums. At least two of them have been urinated in by Situationalists.

It's also possibly the most influential piece of the 20th century; I believe it has been voted as such.

As an artist, I find the general attitude of a lot of people towards fine art (that it is talentless bullshit) highly annoying and insulting. Art is extremely hard work, requiring skill, imagination and intellectual rigour. You say 'anyone could have thought of that', 'my kid could have painted that'. But you didn't. Also, here I'm going to post as an example of this a recent article that really pissed me the fuck off.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16107_6-best-shenanigans-passed-off-as-art.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_16107_6-best-shenanigans-passed-off-as-art.html)

Fucking enfuriating. I really don't see how Piss Christ is so hard to understand. I suspect most people can't get over the HURR HURR reaction or whatever. It's not just a crucifix in piss. Not at all. And the cloaca machines? Fucking philistines.

Appropriation art is a bit of a con though. Wish I'd thought of it.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: öde on 16 Apr 2008, 12:01
I've never really looked towards Cracked for art criticism.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Johnny C on 16 Apr 2008, 13:53
Since I guess I now have seven posts to use up I will use one of them to talk to you fine people about Do-Ho Suh (http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/suh/).

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9794/suhseoulhomezoomimoy9.jpg)

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3691/suhstaircase2zoomimsc2.jpg)

Seoul Home and Staircase, above, are part of a series of works where he painstakingly recreates his own living spaces in silk.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1809/artworkimages651112621dtj3.jpg)

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5388/artworkimages651112620dsw0.jpg)

This is Paratrooper. Suh has this to say about it:

Quote
If there's no parachute, then the soldier dies. He has to use it. But when he finally lands, he has to fight in a completely unknown territory. That's something I felt when I went to the United States. It's a parachute that is directly tied into your life.

The strings tie into this:

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1681/artworkimages651112619dnq2.jpg)

Three thousand signatures.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7919/1sfesedsgrdgrkj0.jpg)

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8800/2xsdgfsgfd2rv4.jpg)

Cause & Effect, made from thousands of interlocking plastic figurines.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8673/ef899f18xe6.jpg)

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8397/87ac9e52ah3.jpg)

Karma.

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6867/artworkimages65165528dojj8.jpg)

Floor.


It goes on and on. Easily my favourite contemporary artist.

EDIT: I think that Cracked article is just taking the piss (Christ). I doubt this:

Quote
It looks more like Christ captured in amber

was an accident.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 16 Apr 2008, 14:07
Perhaps this requires a different thread entirely, but a contemporary artist named Guillermo Vargas recently debuted "Eres lo que lees" in Honduras

Here (http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/6831.html) is an article about it.

Some pictures

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6748/perromuereengaleradeartyh3.jpg
http://n4abc10.abc.es/Hemeroteca/imagenes/abc/06102007/Cultura/NAC_CUL_web_1.jpg
http://www.ojosdepapel.com/blogs%5Cimages/144/GuillermoVargas1.jpg
http://muyanimal.com/uploads/perrosacrificado2.jpg

What does the internet think about this?


Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: öde on 16 Apr 2008, 14:29
Johnny, that is one reason you should post more.

Vargas displays a very serious problem with modern society, but his method was pretty horrible.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: a pack of wolves on 16 Apr 2008, 14:37
His method's impossible to confirm. Nobody's sure how he treated that dog and almost every account I've read of the incident has contradicted others in at least some aspect. The only thing we can be sure of is that Vargas used a stray dog in an art exhibit to highlight some very serious political issues. Even if his actions were as bad as the worst reports it's nowhere near as bad as what's gone into the average egg sold in a supermarket, so I can't really see why there's been such an uproar. It seems to be largely based on the hypocrisy that dogs are cute and fluffy so should be given more care than other animals.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 16 Apr 2008, 15:00
In actuality, I agree with you.  Most of the complaints I have seen are based on grossly exaggerated facts.  The common argument that "the dog was tied up and left to starve for several days" is untrue in several different ways.  The art director herself stated in an interview: "It was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition lasted and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in."
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Cartilage Head on 16 Apr 2008, 15:34
 I like Do-Ho Suh's piece "Who Am We?" made of a bunch of yearbook photos that essentially create just a pattern.

Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: öde on 16 Apr 2008, 15:48
That is fair enough then!
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Jposh on 16 Apr 2008, 20:54
Can a regular painting be considered contemporary?
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: muteKi on 16 Apr 2008, 22:24
Oh my gosh guys, the Gallery Shooting Gallery is awesome.

http://www.eiu.org/experiments/gsg/

Now if only I could find where contols are to the thing so that I can shoot semi-suspecting art patrons.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Emaline on 16 Apr 2008, 22:27
Can a regular painting be considered contemporary?



Anything made within the last 100 years is considered contemporary.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Darkbluerabbit on 16 Apr 2008, 22:39
Here (http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/6831.html) is an article about it.

If that article is to be believed, then I disapprove, thoroughly.  If he did in fact leave a dog tied up without food or water until it died, I don't care what point he was making, it's fucking disgusting. 

From my perspective, the only way I could honestly approve of his methods would be if he had captured the dog, fed it well, "exhibited" it for the three hours, and then adopted it as his own after using it to prove a point.  Either way, he's using a living creature to make a statement, but giving the dog a better life off of the streets would be a good "payment" to the dog for being chained up in a fucking gallery.  I doubt the dog is too feral to be taken in, since it let people mill around it like that. 

I generally don't like it when artists use animals, dead or alive, as a medium.  I don't care if it's puppies and kittens or rats and jellyfish, it makes me uncomfortable.  I guess that's probably the point, but I can't like it or be glad that that kind of art exists. 

I have taken pictures of dead fish on the beach, so maybe I'm a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: KharBevNor on 17 Apr 2008, 03:55
There's a guy on my course who did some paintings with pureed maggots and meat. They looked amazing, but the smell was unbelievable.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: godinpants on 17 Apr 2008, 05:02
I like a lot of the stuff the graffiti research lab are doing.
http://graffitiresearchlab.com (http://graffitiresearchlab.com)

Stuff like the throwies are pretty excellent.
Laser tag and electro-graf are probably my favourites though.
http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?page_id=76#video
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: jhocking on 17 Apr 2008, 06:19
oo cool post johnny, I like those sculptures, I'll have to try to see a show in person.

Can a regular painting be considered contemporary?

Anything made within the last 100 years is considered contemporary.

Well more like 40 but yeah, painting is very much an important part of the art world.


From my perspective, the only way I could honestly approve of his methods would be if he had captured the dog, fed it well, "exhibited" it for the three hours, and then adopted it as his own after using it to prove a point.  Either way, he's using a living creature to make a statement, but giving the dog a better life off of the streets would be a good "payment" to the dog for being chained up in a fucking gallery.

Have you heard of the GFP Bunny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_%28rabbit%29) by Eduardo Kac? What do you think of the ethics of that piece?
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: jhocking on 17 Apr 2008, 06:25
double post
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 17 Apr 2008, 06:50
Here (http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/6831.html) is an article about it.
...I generally don't like it when artists use animals, dead or alive, as a medium.  I don't care if it's puppies and kittens or rats and jellyfish, it makes me uncomfortable.  I guess that's probably the point, but I can't like it or be glad that that kind of art exists.  ...

I agree. I don't mind using them as a subject, which I do quite a bit, but I would never put a live or dead animal in a gallery. (The latter is mostly because taxidermy creeps me out and is also really gross.)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Jposh on 17 Apr 2008, 08:33
Well, since paintings count, I really happen to like the artist Alex Pardee.

(Though a Google image search didn't turn up anything of his that's absolutely spectacular)
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Emaline on 17 Apr 2008, 10:09


Anything made within the last 100 years is considered contemporary.

Well more like 40 but yeah, painting is very much an important part of the art world.




If we are going to be pedants about it, it is actually anything made with in the last 63 years. Anything after WWII is considered contemporary art. It's literature that is contemporary if it was made in the last 100 years/After the 20th century.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 17 Apr 2008, 10:53
If you're getting picky, yes, it's post-WWII OR it's art that is being made presently. I have a feeling this will change in years to come to favor the latter, as WWII was a while ago.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Noct on 17 Apr 2008, 11:05
I just came across this article today via Warren Ellis and... man I don't even know what to say about this.

http://yaledailynews.com/storymin.html

Just throwing it in the mix here.  The concept still has me at a loss for words.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: jhocking on 17 Apr 2008, 11:17
Quote
Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

yeah right
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 17 Apr 2008, 11:26
Quote
"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

What she said. I honestly don't know why anyone would willingly induce multiple miscarriages. I'm pro-choice, but what she did is pretty disgusting to me and also pretty scary, because she put her life at risk by doing it however many times she did.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Narr on 17 Apr 2008, 11:53
I had just been linked that abortion story in an IRC channel I frequent.

That's utterly disgusting.  Pro-life or pro-choice, it's still utter garbage in terms of being "art."  As someone in the IRC channel said, it's like claiming serial murder is art.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: KharBevNor on 17 Apr 2008, 11:56
because she put her life at risk by doing it however many times she did.

And that's why it's really good art.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: a pack of wolves on 17 Apr 2008, 12:08
It's nothing like claiming serial murder is art unless you're pro-life, which she very obviously isn't. Neither am I, so this doesn't offend me in the slightest.

I actually rather like the idea of this piece, I'd be interested to see it. It raises questions about what a person's body can be used for and whether or not we have the right to censure someone for actions taken upon themselves. Personally I'd say she's perfectly within her rights to do whatever she wishes with her own body, and I like the fact that this piece is entering into that dialogue. It's doing it in a way obviously designed to cause controversy but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Look at Bob Flanagan, he was hardly subtle but there was a lot of depth to what he did.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 17 Apr 2008, 12:21
I don't see it as good art. I'm glad she wanted to spark conversation between art and the human body, but I think she was severely lacking in how her project addressed abortion. In this aspect and also from that article, she didn't seem to realize this and try to attempt to defend that part of her work. (She may have at the forum, but I don't know this as I wasn't there, so I can only base this off of the article.) And the idea of walking into a gallery and seeing the videos and the sculpture and wanting to vomit and/or cry do not help me appreciate it. She may be living up to her standard of art, but I don't share her opinion in the slightest.

Also, an artist not caring about their health is kind of silly. We work around hazardous and poisonous materials everyday and preventing accidents is kind of important. (My current number ones are good ventilation and not catching on fire.) Hooray for art being number one, but you can't make art when you're dead.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: jhocking on 17 Apr 2008, 12:28
Imagine how much people would pay for a piece if you died while creating it!
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Noct on 17 Apr 2008, 12:53
Yes, whatever happened to suffering for ones art?

On a more serious note, I think I've decided that, even though the idea of it horrifies and disgusts me on a personal level, I'd still be very interested in seeing how this piece turns out.  Maybe I just like offending myself.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: öde on 17 Apr 2008, 14:38
Hooray for art being number one, but you can't make art when you're dead.

And obviously we can't decide for ourselves whether to take risks or not.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: RedLion on 17 Apr 2008, 15:46
I think artists should be given nearly unmitigated freedom, but when it comes to something like this, there's no point that can be made in that fashion that can't be made in a less horrendous way. It's akin to that guy starving a dog to death for the purposes of "art. " (http://gawker.com/380036/dog+starving-artist-just-gets-more-unpopular)

Sorry, but when your "art" causes the death of another living being, that's where the line is drawn--and I'm vehemently pro-choice, by the way.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Noct on 17 Apr 2008, 16:37
So I found my way back to Warren's blog (it's a busy workday, can you tell?) and he's posted a followup : http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5840

"My money says the physical “art” doesn’t exist, not as described. I mean, I’m open to being wrong. But right now, I think the press release itself is the art piece. In fact, I would imagine any final presentation would be a collation of the media responses to the press release, broadcast as it was during a visit from the Pope to her country of residence....If she’s doing what I think she’s doing, Aliza Shvarts might be the first “great” conceptual artist of the internet age."

So it looks like this could either turn out disgusting, or really freaking cool.  I hope to god Mr. Ellis is right.

Edit: http://dimensionsart.blogspot.com/2008/04/aliza-shvartz.html

He totally called it.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: a pack of wolves on 17 Apr 2008, 18:00
I think artists should be given nearly unmitigated freedom, but when it comes to something like this, there's no point that can be made in that fashion that can't be made in a less horrendous way. It's akin to that guy starving a dog to death for the purposes of "art. " (http://gawker.com/380036/dog+starving-artist-just-gets-more-unpopular)

Sorry, but when your "art" causes the death of another living being, that's where the line is drawn--and I'm vehemently pro-choice, by the way.

We've already discussed the dog thing, the evidence that the artist actually starved the dog to death is highly dubious. How do you feel her point should have been made then? Although I haven't seen the finished work of art I think it sounds like a good way to go about it to me (although admittedly I do feel no death was involved, I understand that if you feel differently about abortion this would seem different but to me it's a bunch of cells). I can't see how some of the issues raised by this work could have been brought up without effecting your own body in a serious fashion.

As for the artist failing to give due regard to health and safety, there's nothing wrong with risking your health to do something you think is important. Graffiti artists do it all the time. Just because something isn't safe doesn't mean it's a bad idea, it just means you should give it some serious thought before you embark on it.

Edit: I just checked out that blog that suggests the art piece was the press release (and presumably the debate it resulted in). That's a fascinating idea, if that is the case I'll be interested to see how she develops it into something for exhibit. I suppose it also partially answers the question I asked of how to raise these issues without actually effecting the body. Nicely done, if this is the case, although if the act has actually taken place it will probably be a more lasting work, raising certain questions in a more visceral, uncomfortable fashion. However, this other concept brings in other issues about the new ways in which culture is debated after the advent of the internet. Either way, this is an artist I'm going to keep an eye on.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Narr on 17 Apr 2008, 19:53
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/yale-student-artificially_n_97194.html

It was a hoax.

I feel terrible for fueling the fire.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: RedLion on 17 Apr 2008, 21:46
Yeah, read that on Yale's website. I'm glad.

I find it ironic that the university's spokesperson says that the very reason that this wasn't real--that it would cause serious health concerns, etc--were brushed off by people on here: (paraphrase) "Sometimes you have to suffer for art."
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: jhocking on 17 Apr 2008, 22:34
I assume you are referring to my post, and/or this one right below it:

Yes, whatever happened to suffering for ones art?

Yeah, how callous. Oh wait, there's more below that:

On a more serious note

golly!

---

Incidentally, while I thought this idea was very disturbing, I thought it plausible because I have known art students who've done crazy dangerous things with their own body. For example, another student in my department when I was in grad school did a performance where he injected a tube into his arm and then painted with the blood squirting out. jeezus
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: thegreatbuddha on 17 Apr 2008, 22:43
I like Jake Von Slatt. He mods modern technology to a steampunk decor. It is neat.

Here (http://steampunkworkshop.com/keyboard.shtml) is a keyboard.

Here (http://steampunkworkshop.com/lcd.shtml) is an LCD computer monitor.

He also does guitars, buses, iPods, and other stuff
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Emaline on 17 Apr 2008, 23:23
Incidentally, while I thought this idea was very disturbing, I thought it plausible because I have known art students who've done crazy dangerous things with their own body. For example, another student in my department when I was in grad school did a performance where he injected a tube into his arm and then painted with the blood squirting out. jeezus


That makes me think of this

(http://modblog.bmezine.com/wp-content/uploads/200612071214-pix1.jpg)


From the artist's site:
"Blood Scarf depicts a scarf knit out of clear vinyl tubing. An intravenous device emerging out of the user's hand fills the scarf with blood. The implied narrative is a paradoxical one in which the device keeps the user warm with their blood while at the same time draining their blood drip by drip."



Which, btw, is Laura Splan, a contemporary artist who is quite interesting. http://www.laurasplan.com/


Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: laizeohbeets on 18 Apr 2008, 08:38
My favorite contemporary artist is Annie Leibovitz. I am a tooootal photography nerd. I know she's a fashion photographer, but damn, if I don't think she's great.

The stuff by Do-Ho Suh is amazing, though. Anything that can use toy soldiers that creatively gets my vote.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Lines on 18 Apr 2008, 09:28
And obviously we can't decide for ourselves whether to take risks or not.

That's not really what I meant. When I was typing that, I was thinking, "What if she died while doing this?" If she had, it could have been one of several things, but the two that would have been most likely IMO are either 1) no one would have heard about it outside of the area or 2) the media would have even MORE to say about what she was doing. I think it could also rendered the piece meaningless, which is something that she didn't seem to think or care about. I guess if she or anyone doesn't care about health the way I do, this changes things, but personally I regard health highly. I also want people to understand what I'm getting at with my own art and I can't do that if I haven't explained it properly or if I died before I could get it to a point where my art could explain itself.

But we've moved on, so I'm not going to complain about it anymore.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: RedLion on 18 Apr 2008, 12:39
From the artist's site:
"Blood Scarf depicts a scarf knit out of clear vinyl tubing. An intravenous device emerging out of the user's hand fills the scarf with blood. The implied narrative is a paradoxical one in which the device keeps the user warm with their blood while at the same time draining their blood drip by drip."

That's really cool, actually. Brilliant concept.



Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: muteKi on 18 Apr 2008, 14:45
Alex Feodorov has pretty impressive stuff.
Title: Re: Contemporary artists!
Post by: Emaline on 18 Apr 2008, 15:25
That's really cool, actually. Brilliant concept.



Check out her site, she has pretty great concepts for everything she does.  It's just really neat.